Caterham being sued??
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
DanB7290 said:
As much as I can't see the guy having a leg to stand on, all these bulls
t no win no fee people will probably mean he wins.
How on earth did you work that one out? Real unlogic. If the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on then very clearly he won't win!t no win no fee people will probably mean he wins.IMO the problem Caterham face is that although the law doesn't prohibit the sale of cars which don't meet modern safety standards the purchaser (or someone injured) can reasonably argue that something sold as a "car" should meet the overall standards normally associated with "cars".
B10 said:
Too many solicitors with too little to do. They should go and get a proper job.
Welcome to the entitlement generation where everything you desire should be yours and any bad luck is someone else's fault.If you, say, get into the passenger seat of a car CLEARLY designed to go fast and it - y'know - crashes whilst on a derestricted road (which looks, for all the world, like a racetrack - and indeed IS one at times) you might suffer serious injuries. The solution to avoiding this is NOT to do that - it's not mandatory or necessary - it's a CHOICE...
Ditto tripping on paving stones, falling from steps etc. - common sense says that unless someone was seriously megligent it's just "bad luck" - but not in 2011, no there's BLAME to be aimed and money to be made (mostly by lawyers).
It's a horrible precedent for which we can thank the USA - for tis they who invented this retarded mindset.
hora said:
Is there a history/other occassions when the same part has failed?
If so then he has good grounds.
However this is a failure on a notorious TRACK not a public road so I really don't think he'll get this far.
Hope he has a strong recovery though
its not a track its classed as a public road on open sessionsIf so then he has good grounds.
However this is a failure on a notorious TRACK not a public road so I really don't think he'll get this far.
Hope he has a strong recovery though
I don't think anyone has mentioned the servicing/repair history of said motor. I built an R300 with my dad which uses the same engine and dry sump system as the R500- under normal circumstances I can't imagine a situation where one of those could come into contact with the road. This raises the question- was the car modified or changed in any way by a third party garage/individual?
By the way I'm pretty sure R500 is only available as a factory build.
I do hope this all blows over as it could be very damaging to Caterham, a company which is performing well at home and in the export market and is showing green shoot growth in new territories it hasn't visited before.
Sympathies to the chap who was injured but in my opinion anyone who ventures onto the track should do so at their own risk, especially where another driver and/or someone else's car is involved. The disclaimers are everywhere.
In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
By the way I'm pretty sure R500 is only available as a factory build.
I do hope this all blows over as it could be very damaging to Caterham, a company which is performing well at home and in the export market and is showing green shoot growth in new territories it hasn't visited before.
Sympathies to the chap who was injured but in my opinion anyone who ventures onto the track should do so at their own risk, especially where another driver and/or someone else's car is involved. The disclaimers are everywhere.
In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
tridave said:
its not a track its classed as a public road on open sessions
I suspect it's legal status re: German road law isn't really going to matter - nor is how the car was being used given that it's clearly sold as a 'race' or 'track' car but is also road legal and so could be considered OK to use in either case.The issue will be proving Caterham knew about the fault and made no effort to contact owners to tell them about it - as well as proving that the fault was a significant cause of the crash, ofc. - and that the owner has maintained the car and not modified it and all that jazz...
Classic Grad 98 said:
Sympathies to the chap who was injured but in my opinion anyone who ventures onto the track should do so at their own risk, especially where another driver and/or someone else's car is involved. The disclaimers are everywhere.
In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
You can't disclaim negligence which causes death or serious injury.In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
It's absurd to compare the risk of deciding to get into a car, with the risk of getting into the same car which has a dangerous fault that shouldn't be there (if that is in fact the case). They aren't the same risk at all.
tridave said:
its not a track its classed as a public road on open sessions
Yeah, but it's not a road is it? It's a track.It was built as a track, it's used as a track. The only time when it's a 'public road' is when it's basically an open pitlane trackday where you pay per lap.
Technically, maybe you 'class' it as a road, but lets be honest - even a blind man can see it's a track.
No undertray on a 7 unless you fit one yourself.
My K R400 has the dry sump hose very slightly below the sump height, however, this is firstly because it has moved very slightly (through heating & contracting I assume) and also because I had a pipe specially made from heavy duty agricultural pipe which is slightly longer than the CC part. It has caught the floor once or twice by the look of the pipe but this is almost certainly due to kerbing on track since the correct part when fitted actually sits in a C shape horizontally.
According to the sump fittings positions the pipe would not sit lower than the sump when the car is flat (i.e not rolling).
As stated above, I wouldn't imagine the Duratec R500 to be designed any differently.
I know many people who track and race(d) 7s very successfully and have not heard of this happening before, though I suspect, like myself, they check and will replace if any significant wear is showing.
If commonsense prevails then Caterham should have no case to answer since the car obviously was not prepped properly or an extraordinary obstacle was caught which simply ripped the pipe open. It would take significant time for the pipe to wear through at the rate that mine is catching (bearing in mind mine sits lower than the CC part would).
We don't, of course, know all the facts but my gut feeling from what I've read is that I suspect the claimant is going for CC because he has drawn a blank on his own insurance and that of his friend driving.
In my opinion, if he was to have a case it would be against his friend but for reasons of friendship and size of bank balance he doesn't wish to do this and so he has gone for CC (possibly egged on by parasitic lawyers).
I would hope that if the story is as plain as has been portrayed in the press then the outcome is that CC have no case to answer.
My K R400 has the dry sump hose very slightly below the sump height, however, this is firstly because it has moved very slightly (through heating & contracting I assume) and also because I had a pipe specially made from heavy duty agricultural pipe which is slightly longer than the CC part. It has caught the floor once or twice by the look of the pipe but this is almost certainly due to kerbing on track since the correct part when fitted actually sits in a C shape horizontally.
According to the sump fittings positions the pipe would not sit lower than the sump when the car is flat (i.e not rolling).
As stated above, I wouldn't imagine the Duratec R500 to be designed any differently.
I know many people who track and race(d) 7s very successfully and have not heard of this happening before, though I suspect, like myself, they check and will replace if any significant wear is showing.
If commonsense prevails then Caterham should have no case to answer since the car obviously was not prepped properly or an extraordinary obstacle was caught which simply ripped the pipe open. It would take significant time for the pipe to wear through at the rate that mine is catching (bearing in mind mine sits lower than the CC part would).
We don't, of course, know all the facts but my gut feeling from what I've read is that I suspect the claimant is going for CC because he has drawn a blank on his own insurance and that of his friend driving.
In my opinion, if he was to have a case it would be against his friend but for reasons of friendship and size of bank balance he doesn't wish to do this and so he has gone for CC (possibly egged on by parasitic lawyers).
I would hope that if the story is as plain as has been portrayed in the press then the outcome is that CC have no case to answer.
will_ said:
Classic Grad 98 said:
Sympathies to the chap who was injured but in my opinion anyone who ventures onto the track should do so at their own risk, especially where another driver and/or someone else's car is involved. The disclaimers are everywhere.
In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
You can't disclaim negligence which causes death or serious injury.In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
It's absurd to compare the risk of deciding to get into a car, with the risk of getting into the same car which has a dangerous fault that shouldn't be there (if that is in fact the case). They aren't the same risk at all.
The 'disclaimers' applies more to the circuit operators who invariably make you agree not to hold them responsible for any accident, and the possibility that something simular would be in place if this is an 'experience' type of thing where a passenger pays for hot laps in the car. This popped into my mind as I find it hard to beleive that the passenger would persue this legal avenue if he was personally connected to the driver.
Since he's bringing the case in the UK it will be heard under UK law.
Noticed the following from the article:
"It is also claimed the company has admitted liability in an open letter dated August 7, 2009."
Where's this open letter ?
I doubt this very much, I suspect not only was the letter not open but what CC probably agreed to was one particular point put to them, eg. "If I were to run over a tree branch in the 7 it is possible I could catch the pipe, is it not ?"
Noticed the following from the article:
"It is also claimed the company has admitted liability in an open letter dated August 7, 2009."
Where's this open letter ?
I doubt this very much, I suspect not only was the letter not open but what CC probably agreed to was one particular point put to them, eg. "If I were to run over a tree branch in the 7 it is possible I could catch the pipe, is it not ?"
Edited by Nifty on Monday 5th September 17:00
Classic Grad 98 said:
will_ said:
Classic Grad 98 said:
Sympathies to the chap who was injured but in my opinion anyone who ventures onto the track should do so at their own risk, especially where another driver and/or someone else's car is involved. The disclaimers are everywhere.
In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
You can't disclaim negligence which causes death or serious injury.In short I doubt that any 'Negligence' on Caterham's part can be proven in this instance.
It's absurd to compare the risk of deciding to get into a car, with the risk of getting into the same car which has a dangerous fault that shouldn't be there (if that is in fact the case). They aren't the same risk at all.
The 'disclaimers' applies more to the circuit operators who invariably make you agree not to hold them responsible for any accident, and the possibility that something simular would be in place if this is an 'experience' type of thing where a passenger pays for hot laps in the car. This popped into my mind as I find it hard to beleive that the passenger would persue this legal avenue if he was personally connected to the driver.
It is a difficult one.
It is classed as a toll road. Was the Caterham setup correctly for Nordschleife work?
Was the chap wearing a lid? (I may have missed that one?) If he wasn't it could be argued that he didn't take adequate steps to protect himself in a open, lightweight, big bhp/tonne car.
Did they carry out pre-checks?
I sympathise with him, I really do.
It is classed as a toll road. Was the Caterham setup correctly for Nordschleife work?
Was the chap wearing a lid? (I may have missed that one?) If he wasn't it could be argued that he didn't take adequate steps to protect himself in a open, lightweight, big bhp/tonne car.
Did they carry out pre-checks?
I sympathise with him, I really do.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff